The one thing that proves evolution wrong

[zian]

Magicsilence:

Evolution seeks to have us believe that that something like a kidney, or the immune system just happened by chance through a huge mutation that suddenly caused it.

Andre,
Steve already got this one too, but I can’t let it pass either.

This is beyond ridiculous, to say that evolution asserts this, that whole organ systems, for example, just popped into existance. Check any good evolution discussion, many of which have already been linked.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

zian:

Andre,
Steve already got this one too, but I can’t let it pass either.

This is beyond ridiculous, to say that evolution asserts this, that whole organ systems, for example, just popped into existance. Check any good evolution discussion, many of which have already been linked.

What’s interesting to me is that such an occurrence - the sudden appearance of an entire organ system, or a dog giving birth to a cat - would actually be strong evidence against evolution, and in favor of some sort of intelligent design.

 

[wildleafblower]

Andre said, “2) Why would God waste millions of years guiding evolution. Seems like a waste of time to me. In Christ.”

zian replied, “I have no idea. Why are you asking me.
I have confidence than an omnipotent and omniscient creator could accomplish such. As I reminded GodnCountry in another thread - 2 Peter 3:8 - But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.”

wildleafblower comments, “II Peter, CHAP. 3, VER.8-18, Prepare for the Second Coming: 8 But, beloved, do not be ignorant of this one thing, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord does not delay in his promises, but for your sake is long-suffering, not wishing that any should perish but that all should turn to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; at that time the heavens will pass away with great violence, and the elements will be dissoved with heat and the earth, and the works that are in it, will be burned up. 11 Seeing therefore that all these things are to be dissoved, what manner of men ought you to be in holy and pious behavior, 12 you who await and hasten towards the coming of the day of God, by which the heavens, being on fire, will be dissoved and the elements will melt away by reason of the heat of the fire! 13 But we look for new heavens and a new earth, according to his promises, wherein dwells justice. (Exhortation, doxology) 14 Therefore, beloved, while you look for these things, endeavor to be found by him without spot and blameless, in peace. 15 And regard the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation. Just as our most dear broth Paul also, according to the wisdom given him, has written to you, 16 as indeed he did in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things. In these epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable distort, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures also, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, brethren, since you know this beforehand, be on your guard lest, carried away by the error of the foolish, you fall away from your own steadfastness. 18 But grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. To him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” (p.231The Holy Catholic Bible, published with the approbation of His Eminence Samuel Cardinal Stritch, Archbishop of Chicago, The Catholic Press, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 1953)

Hi Andre,

God doesn’t guide evolution. There will come a day when the Lord will return. In the meantime, we have the Holy Spirit of God to help guide us in the way of truth. Bless you.

 

[zian]

EnterTheBowser:

What’s interesting to me is that such an occurrence - the sudden appearance of an entire organ system, or a dog giving birth to a cat - would actually be strong evidence against evolution, and in favor of some sort of intelligent design.

Nothing personal to you cat lovers out there, but as a dog lover I would not consider that to be intelligent design.

 

[wildleafblower]

The Theory of Evolution isn’t ‘intelligently designed’ so there’s isn’t a need to be concerned it will be intelligently undesigned in the future. Interesting note to mention, there’s been a resent study on autism. People with autism look for patterns and designs in nature. Remind me to post that study. I guess everyone knows by now that I’m not a fan of the Intelligent Design hypothesis. It failed as pure science in the courts, which any intelligent person would have already known. The people who started the Intelligent Design Movement tried to pass it off to the public as a scientific theory and lost the battle in the courtroom. My only guess is they thought experts in the fields of science (including philosophy) were dumb. Wow, were the ID folks ever so wrong, wrong, wrong. Their followers are lost without sense of reason. Sad ending. We’ll have to be positive and see what comes out of a sad ending…

Blessings to everyone

 

[Orogeny]

wildleafblower:

wildleafblower comments, "II Peter, CHAP. 3, VER.8-18, Prepare for the Second Coming: 8 But, beloved, do not be ignorant of this one thing, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

From the New American Bible:

8 6 7 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.

New American Bible. Found at usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/2peter3.htm

As this is the version used in the Mass, I will defer to it rather than your version.

Peace

Tim

 

[wildleafblower]

Hi Tim,

It’s not my version of the Catholic Bible. I have the New American Bible too. I like both versions, perfering the first because it sounds poetic.

1. But, beloved, do not be ignorant of this one thing, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2. But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.

It states in The Preface to the New American Bible:

*Conscious of their personal limitations for the task thus defined, those who have prepared this text cannot expect that it will be considered perfect; but they can hope that it may deepen in its readers “the right understanding of the divinely given Scriptures,” and awaken in them “that piety by which it behooves us to be grateful to the God of all providence, who from the throne of his majesty has sent these books as so many personal letters to his own children” (Divino afflante Spiritu). *

Beautifully written

 

[PhilVaz]

wild << God doesn’t guide evolution. There will come a day when the Lord will return. In the meantime, we have the Holy Spirit of God to help guide us in the way of truth. >>

Seems to me the bare statement “God doesn’t guide evolution” without explanation is against Catholic teaching here:

“In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because ‘the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence’ (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”

Also these statements from Ludwig Ott:

God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

But God may guide evolution without direct intervention. That is the view of Vatican astronomer Fr. George Coyne or Howard Van Till for example.

Phil P

 

[wildleafblower]

Hi Phil,

Before continuing our discussion, I’d appreciate Alec’s spirit of co-operation by responding to my questions on the topic **Universal Truth and Moral Absolutes ** forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8531

I’m confident his comments will help me to add a new dimension of insight into our current topic of discussion.

In the meantime, thank you for your patience.

 

[Magicsilence]

BioCatholic:

actually, you are wrong. GENE DUPLICATION, that is, a process whereby a gene is doubled, or tripled within the genome, is responsible for many VARIANTS (isoforms) of enzymes. these variants mutate over time and become entirely different genes. hence, you GAIN genetic material that is beneficial.

take for instance the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, where Drs. Richard Axel and Linda Buck demonstrated that the odor receptors are part of a PSEUDOGEN

E family. that is, the 1000 types of odor receptors share alot of similarity, but are different at KEY points in the gene. thus, each receptor subtype has a different response to different odors based on the DIFFERING STRUCTURE of each receptor.

they also demonstrated that this is NOT from alternative splicing of mRNA. hence, these genes were duplicated and over time, mutations creeped in that caused variations in the receptors.

you will note they won the Nobel Prize for this. because 1) it became the basis for understanding HOW an entire sensory system works, and 2) definitively showed that PSEUDOGENES exist and produce real results in physiology.

Pseudogenes have also been demonstrated in the retina, for which the authors probably will win a future Nobel Prize because it demonstrates DEVELOPMENTAL consequences of psudogene function.

you will see a combined 40 years of research in odor and vision that support this. by scientists (many Nobel Prize winners).

Technically speaking, gene duplication does not produce any new genetic material. It is the gradual accumulation of other material into a new pattern that does. So technically speaking, what I said still stands.

Yes, after fifty bazillion mutations/changes you have a gene with new material but it hasnt come from nowhere. We are seeing the reshuffling of old genetic material.

But we do have clear evidence that modern Homo sapiens replaced Neanderthals.

Have you considered that possibility that human populations weren’t isolated from each other long enough for significant changes to occur?

I would love to see that evidence. From what i read of Richard Leakey it still seems to be a far cry from concrete evidence. A massive lack of skeletons to fall back on has led scientists to make some wild conclusions, making the evidence fit with the theory.
Average life span of lets say 40 years for a human. = at least over 20 billion humans in existence, and thats since the time of Jesus, few before that too. And yet, we have yet to observe evolution within a human being. There are currently 6 biliion people in the world. Millions are born every day, AND YET we have not observed evolution within humans.

Peace be with you all.

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[zian]

Magicsilence:

Technically speaking, gene duplication does not produce any new genetic material. It is the gradual accumulation of other material into a new pattern that does. So technically speaking, what I said still stands.

Yes, after fifty bazillion mutations/changes you have a gene with new material but it hasnt come from nowhere. We are seeing the reshuffling of old genetic material.

I would love to see that evidence. From what i read of Richard Leakey it still seems to be a far cry from concrete evidence. A massive lack of skeletons to fall back on has led scientists to make some wild conclusions, making the evidence fit with the theory.

Average life span of lets say 40 years for a human. = at least over 20 billion humans in existence, and thats since the time of Jesus, few before that too. And yet, we have yet to observe evolution within a human being. There are currently 6 biliion people in the world. Millions are born every day, AND YET we have not observed evolution within humans.

Peace be with you all.
In Christ.
Andre.

What do you mean that “we have yet to observe evolution”? Do you mean we have yet to observe a new species branch off from humans? How would you know? What would you expect to see? Do you mean that there are no observations of evolutionary mechanisms, like selection, operating on human populations? By definition I think this would be difficult in humans, on a scale of only a few thousand years.

What about other species? See any of Phil or Alec or Steve or Tim’s posts for links to observed speciation (hint: TalkOrigins). And if you want to see something neat about how the human gene compares to those of the great apes, have a look at Alec’s page and associated references here regarding the observation that the human Chromosome 2 is essentially the result of an end to end fusion of two chimp chromosomes. Which is why humans only have 23 pairs of chromosomes, wheras the great apes have 24 pairs.